May 5th is World Hand Hygiene Day

short version

For quality managers in food production, hand hygiene is a control lever for product safety, auditability and cost control. The literature shows that hand washing with soap and water and alcoholic hand disinfection effectively reduce the bacterial load on the hands. The data on viruses is more heterogeneous; non-enveloped viruses such as norovirus are more demanding, and alcoholic hand disinfection should only be assessed here with proven virucidal effectiveness and not as a general substitute for hand washing. The biggest gap in practice is often not a lack of knowledge, but inadequate execution. Current observational studies from food businesses show that many hand hygiene treatments are not carried out in accordance with the rules, either technically or formally. The law requires suitable infrastructure and personal cleanliness. Standards such as IFS and BRCGS flesh this out into documented, risk-based, monitored and effectiveness-tested hand hygiene programs. (Hilton et al., 2025; Eggers and Suchomel, 2023; Evans et al., 2025; Mohamed and Evans, 2024; European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2004; IFS Management GmbH, 2023; BRCGS, 2022)

In production plants, hand hygiene measures should be carried out on a zone-specific and process-specific basis. They must be functionally structured particularly at entrances to production and high-risk areas, when switching from raw material areas to areas with ready-to-eat products, after returning to toilets and breaks, after contact with contaminated surfaces or raw materials and before all open work steps after germ-reducing process steps and before packaging steps. The most effective strategy for success is a bundle of good infrastructure, clear standard operating procedures, observable technology, repeated behavioral feedback, skin protection, and risk-based indicators. (BRCGS, 2022; IFS Management GmbH, 2023; WHO, 2009c)

Since company size, level of automation, product category, hygiene class and national product approvals are not specified in the existing requirements, this newsletter formulates a cross-sectoral framework of best practice for food production with a focus on exposed products and manual process steps.

What hand hygiene means in the food industry today

According to World Health Organization terminology, hand hygiene is any hygienic measure to reduce transient microorganisms on hands; in practice, this is done by hand washing with soap and water or by rubbing with an alcohol-based formulation. If hands are not visibly dirty, alcohol-based rubbing is an effective procedure; hand washing is required if there is visible contamination. The WHO states 20-30 seconds for hand disinfection and 40-60 seconds for hand washing. (WHO, 2009a; WHO, 2009b)

Two groups of pathogens in particular are relevant for food companies. The first includes classic foodborne bacterial hazards such as Campylobacter, Salmonella, STEC, and Listeria monocytogenes. The second comprises fecal-oral viruses, in particular norovirus and hepatitis A, which can be transmitted via infected persons, contaminated hands or contaminated ready-to-eat products. Campylobacteriosis and salmonellosis were the most frequently reported zoonoses in the EU in 2024; at the same time, noroviruses remained a central trigger of foodborne outbreaks. (EFSA and ECDC, 2025)

It is particularly important for quality managers that not all microorganisms behave in the same way on their hands. The systematic review by Hilton et al. in community environments shows that mean reductions of 2.19 log10 after hand washing with soap and water and 3.13 log10 after alcoholic hand sanitizers are achieved for bacteria. For viruses, the mean reductions were 2.03 log10 after hand washing with soap and water and 1.86 log10 after alcoholic hand sanitizers. It does not follow that hand washing is generally superior to hand disinfection. Rather, the decisive factor is: If there is visible contamination, hand washing remains necessary; in the case of unenveloped viruses such as norovirus, the effectiveness of the specific product against the relevant virus group must be proven. (Hilton et al., 2025; Eggers and Suchomel, 2023; WHO, 2009a; WHO, 2009b)

The most important new insight is this differentiation: Hand hygiene must match the risk. Well-formulated alcoholic hand disinfection can be very effective against bacterial contamination; the performance against unenveloped viruses is more dependent on the product and process. A study on foaming hand sanitizers published in 2025 showed that effectiveness depends heavily on the type of virus, formulation and rubbing time. The coated virus model Phi 6 was significantly more sensitive than the uncoated virus model MS2; prolonged rubbing until dry significantly increased inactivation. For quality managers, this means that product approval must not be based on advertising claims, but after validated effectiveness against the relevant target organisms. (Torko and Gibson, 2025; Eggers and Suchomel, 2023)

Where hands become a critical point of control

The most legally and normatively relevant contact points are entry and transition points: production accesses, hygiene locks, toilet returns, breaks and all transitions between zones or activities with different contamination profiles. The EU hygiene regulation requires sufficient and suitably placed hand wash basins with hot and cold water, hand cleaning agents and hygienic drying. Employees in food areas must maintain a high level of personal cleanliness. (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2004)

Current industry requirements are even more specific. BRCGS requires hand washing facilities at entrances to production areas and at other suitable locations within production, with information signs, water at a suitable temperature, hands-free faucets, liquid or foam soap as well as disposable towels or suitably designed air dryers. For areas with increased hygiene requirements, high care or high risk in the BRCGS context, BRCGS expressly requires hand washing and hand disinfection upon entry. (BRCGS, 2022)

The IFS standard is also clear: Personal hygiene rules must be documented on a risk-based basis and cover at least hand washing, hand disinfection, fingernails, jewelry, cuts/skin injuries and the reporting of infectious diseases. Compliance is risk-based, but must be monitored at least once every three months; in addition, a risk-based program is required to manage the effectiveness of hand hygiene. (IFS Management GmbH, 2023)

‍

• When entering the zone in low-risk, high-hygiene or high-risk areas, because this is where personnel movement can become a germ bridge. (BRCGS, 2022)
• Before open work steps after germ-reducing process steps and for ready-to-eat products, such as portioning, filling, sorting, reworking, manual insertion and packaging. Here, hand contamination can be transferred directly to the ready-to-eat product. (FAO and WHO, 2023)
• After contact with raw materials, waste, cleaning, maintenance and after contact with pallets, doors, control elements or other non-food contact surfaces. This point in particular is often underestimated in everyday life. (FAO and WHO, 2023)
• When changing allergens and products because personnel can be a vector of allergen cross-contact. The current Allergen Code expressly emphasizes immediate prevention. (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2020)
• For symptomatic or freshly recovered employees, especially for symptoms typical of norovirus, such as vomiting and diarrhea. Infected employees are a classic driver of contamination in ready-to-eat products. (FAO and WHO, 2023)

‍

The latest industry-related observation is sobering and therefore so valuable. In a 2025 study from three food businesses, 88% of employees used some kind of hand hygiene treatment before entering the production areas, but 98% of these attempts did not comply with the protocol. In a 2024 study from a sandwich factory with ready-to-eat products, only 1% of the observed tests were fully compliant with the rules. 95% fell short of the recommended washing time, and 62% did not use the intended disinfection step after washing and drying. This is exactly where the lever lies for quality managers: not more posters, but better execution. (Evans et al., 2025; Mohamed and Evans, 2024)

How pathogens are reliably removed

handwash

Suitable for:
visible contamination; fat/protein; after toilet; after raw goods/waste; norovirus risk

Duration/Prerequisite:
40-60 s; completely soap, rinse and dry hygienically

Strengths:
Removes dirt and organic matter; broadly effective

Limits:
more time-consuming; depends on technology and washing area

‍

Alcoholic hand disinfectant

Suitable for:
clean, dry hands; additional step in hygiene locks

Duration/Prerequisite:
20-30 s or manufacturer contact time; completely wet hands

Strengths:
fast; very good bacterial activity

Limits:
not when there is visible contamination; virus effect depends on the product

‍

Wash + disinfect

Suitable for:
high-hygiene/high-risk areas; exposed ready-to-eat products

Duration/Prerequisite:
wash, dry, maintain approved contact time

Strengths:
robust standard for sensitive areas

Limits:
Only effective when both steps are carried out cleanly

‍

disinfectant wipes

Suitable for:
only validated special cases

Duration/Prerequisite:
product and process specific

Strengths:
practical in special locations

Limits:
non-standard solution; heterogeneous evidence

_{(WHO, 2009a; WHO, 2009b; Hilton et al., 2025; Torko and Gibson, 2025; BRCGS, 2022)}

Gloves should never be used as a substitute for hand hygiene. They can be used risk-based and task-based and may only be applied to clean and dry hands. If gloves are changed, damaged, contaminated or changed zones, hand hygiene must be carried out in accordance with operational standard operating procedures before new gloves are put on. Gloves never replace hand hygiene. (Who, 2009a; Who, 2025)

What is particularly important right now

The RKI-S2K guideline emphasizes that the complete wetting of all palms, fingertips, nail folds, thumbs and spaces between them is crucial. Unwetted areas remain untreated and can significantly reduce the effectiveness of hand disinfection. That is exactly why UV/fluorescence-based technical training courses are so useful: They make the invisible visible. (Kramer et al., 2024)

A study on foaming hand sanitizers published in 2025 showed that effectiveness also depends heavily on the virus type, formulation and the duration of rubbing. The coated virus model Phi 6 was significantly more sensitive than the uncoated virus model MS2; prolonged rubbing until dry significantly increased inactivation. This is relevant for food companies because the virus risks in practice can be heavily influenced by norovirus. (Torko and Gibson, 2025)

Norovirus needs caution. Recent studies and guidelines show that alcoholic hand sanitizer can be used in addition, but not as the sole substitute for hand washing with soap and water. For typical norovirus scenarios, such as vomiting or diarrhoea in the workplace, the standard operating procedure should expressly require “wash first.” (Eggers and Suchomel, 2023)

Hand drying is also not a side step. A recent experimental study from the interior and washroom context found that electric hand dryers spread more droplet and aerosol than paper towels. For food companies, this is not a direct proof of effectiveness, but a plausible reason to prefer disposable towels as a more conservative solution in exposed areas with ready-to-eat products. An earlier critical literature review assessed the overall data on hand drying methods as methodologically inconsistent. (Moura et al., 2025; Reynolds et al., 2021)

How to implement an effective system

The most robust implementation logic is a multimodal approach. Infrastructure, training, evaluation and feedback, reminder systems and leadership climate must be right at the same time. The WHO describes exactly these five elements as an effective improvement strategy. IFS and BRCGS require documented rules, monitoring and effectiveness control in parallel. For food companies, this means: good washing areas and dispensers, clear zone entry rules, observable technical standards, recurring feedback and management presence in production. (WHO, 2009c; IFS Management GmbH, 2023; BRCGS, 2022)

What should be included in every standard operating procedure

Each hand hygiene standard operating procedure should specify at least the following:

• Scope by zone and product type: Low-risk, high-hygiene and high-risk areas, ready-to-eat products, work steps following germ-reducing process steps, rework and allergen line. (BRCGS, 2022)
• Trigger: Admission, zone change, toilet return, break return, raw material contact, waste, cleaning, maintenance, cough/nose/face, glove change, allergen change. (FAO and WHO, 2023)
• sequence of steps: When to wash, when to disinfect, in what order, what contact time applies, how to dry and when gloves are allowed or prohibited. (Who, 2009b)
• Personal hygiene: Jewelry, watches, nails, nail polish, artificial nails, wounds, skin problems, illness reports. (IFS Management GmbH, 2023)
• Discrepancies and escalation: What happens if a hygiene step is missed in front of an open product, if a wrong entry into the zone or if employees experience symptoms? (IFS Management GmbH, 2023)

Training that really changes behavior

Training improves knowledge reliably, but only sustainably if training is practical, repetitive, observable and feedback-based. Meta-analyses of training in the food sector show good effects on knowledge, but significantly weaker and more variable effects on actual behavior without further support. (Insfran-Rivarola et al., 2020; Young et al., 2019)

A randomized study from 2025 involving employees in the food sector is particularly interesting. Here, training in a virtual learning environment increased washing time, the number of correctly executed WHO steps and execution quality more than traditional face-to-face training or training with fluorescent test substance to visualize washing errors. That doesn't mean that every company needs a virtual learning environment. However, it means that active, practical, immediately reported forms of training are more effective than passive instruction. (Karabulut et al., 2025)

The analysis using the behavioral model of ability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B) from food businesses provides the right behavioral logic for this. Relevant drivers were not just knowledge, but habit, attention/memory, perceived importance, available opportunity, skin irritation, and other practical hurdles. If you want to increase compliance, you have to address the availability of the right tools, opportunities and motivation at the same time: train technology, remove friction from the process and appreciate correct behavior in a socially visible way. (Kebbi et al., 2026)

Specific motivation and reinforcement strategies

For food businesses, five strategies are particularly close to the evidence:

• Brief feedback at the location of the event instead of just a monthly report. Report observed behavior on the same day. (Who, 2009c)
• Fluorescence/UV checks for technology quality, not just theory tests. (Kramer et al., 2024)
• Skin protection as a measure to improve compliance: Skin irritation lowers readiness and quality. WHO and current behavioral research explicitly mention skin protection. (WHO, 2009a; Kebbi et al., 2026)
• Target group-specific training for temporary work, seasonal workers and multilingual teams. IFS requires programs adapted to tasks and language. (IFS Management GmbH, 2023)
• Recognition instead of just sanction: Real-time data can make training effectiveness visible and reward correct behavior, strengthening the food safety culture. (Evans et al., 2023)

How impact is measured and audited

The most common measurement error is to record only “hand hygiene happens/doesn't happen.” For quality managers, it is important whether the right step is taken, in the right place, at the right time, with the right technology, with the right duration and with the right escalation. IFS expressly requires effectiveness monitoring; WHO and RKI emphasize monitoring, feedback and consumption data as control elements. (IFS Management GmbH, 2023; WHO, 2009c; Kramer et al., 2024)

Recommended key figures

There is no reliable universal figure that is considered good hand hygiene for every company. Product type, zones, level of automation, and observed opportunities vary too much. A small, stable set of key figures is therefore useful:

• Compliance at critical opportunities (%): correctly performed hand hygiene/all defined opportunities. Focus: Zone entry, ready-to-eat products, work steps following germ-reducing process steps and transitions from raw materials to ready-to-eat products. (IFS Management GmbH, 2023)
• Compliance with full technology (%): Share of events with the correct sequence of steps, sufficient duration, product use and hygienic drying. (Who, 2009b)
• Noncompliance rate: Share of defined opportunities without hand hygiene treatment. (Mohamed and Evans, 2024)
• Product consumption per critical opportunity or per 1,000 entries: not as a substitute for observation, but as a trend indicator. RKI uses consumption data as a control signal. (Kramer et al., 2024)
• Proportion of practical training completed: Share of successful practice validations, e.g. UV coverage or structured live observation. (Kramer et al., 2024)
• Processing time for recurring corrective and preventive measures: How quickly can the same hygiene errors be eliminated in a stable manner? (IFS Management GmbH, 2023)

Audit and monitoring approaches

Structured observation

measurement:
Timing, technology, duration

advantages:
significant for process behavior

Limits:
observer effect; personnel costs

Suitable for:
Tours, training

‍

Covert observation

measurement:
Everyday behavior

advantages:
lower observer effect

Limits:
legal/subject to participation; question of confidence

Suitable for:
Root cause analysis; only transparently regulated

‍

UV/fluorescence exercise

measurement:
Wetting and covering

advantages:
very illustrative

Limits:
no direct evidence of germs

Suitable for:
Training, retraining

‍

Product consumption data

measurement:
consumption trend

advantages:
simple, continuous

Limits:
no proof of technology

Suitable for:
early warning, management overview

‍

adenosine triphosphate (ATP) or microbiological tests

measurement:
residual load

advantages:
helpful for validation and troubleshooting

Limits:
not pathogen or behavior-specific

Suitable for:
validation, root cause analysis

_{Source: Monitoring concepts from RKI and WHO, studies from the food sector with camera evaluation, reviews of direct observation, UV training and limits of ATP measurements. (Kramer et al., 2024; WHO, 2009c; Evans et al., 2025; Mohamed and Evans, 2024)}

‍

Practice checklists and prioritized sources

Ready-to-use checklist for the on-site tour

Daily on-site tour for quality managers:

• Are all critical hand hygiene triggers visibly defined per zone? (BRCGS, 2022)
• Do all washing areas work and are soap, water, drying and possibly alcoholic hand sanitizer available? (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2004)
• When entering high-hygiene areas and areas with ready-to-eat products, are hands actually correctly washed and, if required, disinfected? (BRCGS, 2022)
• Are disposable towels used hygienically and faucets closed without recontamination? (WHO, 2009a)
• Are jewelry, watches, artificial nails, nail polish and skin lesions managed in accordance with the rules? (IFS Management GmbH, 2023)
• Are gloves only used on a risk-related and task-related basis and are they changed in good time? (WHO, 2025)
• Is hand hygiene explicitly integrated into the standard operating procedure when allergen changes? (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2020)
• Is there short daily feedback based on real observations? (Who, 2009c)
• Are skin problems actively identified and addressed with skin protection? (WHO, 2009a)
• Is it clearly regulated that symptomatic employees do not work on food? (FAO and WHO, 2023)

Minimum rules for gloves, jewelry and nails

Gloves: only when process or risk requires it; hands clean and dry before putting on; switch gloves between tasks, products, zones and after contamination; they never replace hand hygiene. (WHO, 2025)

Jewelry and watches: IFS prohibits visible jewelry and watches in principle; BRCGS requires documented personal hygiene rules; the current RKI-S2K guideline justifies this by reducing hygiene and possible pathogen reservoir formation. For manufacturing companies with an open product, a strict “no jewelry” rule is the safest and most audit-proof line. (IFS Management GmbH, 2023; BRCGS, 2022; Kramer et al., 2024)

Nails: short, clean, undamaged, unpainted; no artificial nails, no nail design The reason is twofold: better cleanability and lower risk of glove defects or bacterially colonized edge areas. (IFS Management GmbH, 2023; Kramer et al., 2024)

HACCP integration in practice

In most companies, hand hygiene is cleanly managed as part of good hygiene practice and basic programs, with clear links to hazard analysis, zone management, personal hygiene and product change processes. However, in exposed areas following germ-reducing process steps or with ready-to-eat products, the critical moments of entry and activity should be monitored so closely that they are treated functionally as a controlled release step. Defined rules, documented observation, clear deviation response and verification are necessary. This classification is site and product specific and should be expressly justified in the food safety management system. (FAO and WHO, 2023)

bibliography

_{BRCGS (2022) Global Standard Food Safety. Issue 9. London: BRCGS.}

_{Codex Alimentarius Commission (2020) Code of Practice on Food Allergen Management for Food Business Operators (CXC 80-2020). Rome: FAO/WHO.}

_{EFSA (2014a) EFSA Explains Zoonotic Diseases: Campylobacter. Parma: European Food Safety Authority.}

_{EFSA (2014b) EFSA Explains Zoonotic Diseases: Salmonella. Parma: European Food Safety Authority.}

_{EFSA and ECDC (2025) 'The European Union One Health 2024 Zoonoses Report', EFSA Journal, 23 (12), e9759. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9759.}

_{EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (2011) 'Scientific Opinion on Campylobacter in Broiler Meat Production: Control Options and Performance Objectives and/or Targets at Different Stages of the Food Chain', EFSA Journal, 9 (4), 2105. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2105.}

_{Eggers, M. and Suchomel, M. (2023) 'In vivo efficacy of alcohol-based hand rubs against noroviruses: A novel standardized European test method simulating practical conditions', Journal of Hospital Infection, 135, pp. 186—192. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2023.03.005.}

_{European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2004) 'Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs', Official Journal of the European Union, L 139, pp. 1—54.}

_{Evans, E.W., Bulochova, V., Jayal, A. and Haven-Tang, C. (2023) 'Attitudes towards using artificial intelligence to determine real-time hand hygiene compliance in the food sector, 'Food Control, 145, 109439. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2022.109439.}

_{Evans, E.W., Samuel, E.J., Mayho, S., Turila, C.-A., Taylor, H.R. and Redmond, E.C. (2025) 'Assessing hand hygiene in food manufacturing: The feasibility of CCTV surveillance, 'Food Control, 175, 111282. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2025.111282.}

_{FAO and WHO (2023) General Principles of Food Hygiene. Codex Alimentarius Code of Practice, No. CXC 1-1969. Rome: Codex Alimentarius Commission. doi: 10.4060/cc6125en.}

_{Hilton, S.P., An, N.H., O'Brien, L.A., Snyder, J.S., Rogers, H.K., Cumming, O., Esteves Mills, J., Gordon, B., Freeman, M.C., Caruso, B.A. and Wolfe, M.K. (2025) 'Efficacy and effectiveness of hand hygiene-related practices used in community settings for removal of organisms from hands: A systematic review', BMJ Global Health, 10 (Suppl. 7), e018925. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2025-018925.}

_{IFS Management GmbH (2023) IFS Food Standard. Version 8. Berlin: IFS Management GmbH.}

_{Insfran-Rivarola, A., Tlapa, D., Limon-Romero, J., Baez-Lopez, Y., Miranda-Ackerman, M., Arredondo-Soto, K. and Ontiveros, S. (2020) 'A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of food safety and hygiene training on food handlers', Foods, 9 (9), 1169. doi: 10.3390/foods90 91169.}

_{Karabulut, Ö.F., Çelikcan, U., Ellahi, B. and Dikmen, D. (2025) 'Training of food handlers on handwashing using a virtual reality environment is more effective than traditional training approaches in a randomized trial, 'International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 35 (8), pp. 2067—2078. doi: 10.1080/09603123.2024.2425781.}

_{Kebbi, R., Haven-Tang, C., Redmond, E.C. and Evans, E.W. (2026) 'Exploring hand hygiene practices in food businesses using the capability, opportunity and motivation for behaviour change (COM-B) model, 'Food Control, 183, 111863. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2025.111863.}

_{Kramer, A., Seifert, J., Abele-Horn, M., Arvand, M., Biever, P., Blacky, A. et al. (2024) 'S2K guideline hand antisepsis and hand hygiene, 'GMS Hygiene and Infection Control, 19, Doc42. doi: 10.3205/dgkh000497.}

_{Mohamed, A. and Evans, E.W. (2024) 'Observation of food handlers' hand hygiene behavior during production at a sandwich-making factory, Journal of Food Protection, 87 (12), 100386. doi: 10.1016/j.jfp.2024.100386.}

_{Moura, I.B., Bentley, K., Kaur, K. and Wilcox, M.H. (2025) 'Understanding the impact of different hand drying methods on viral aerosol formation and surface contamination in indoor environments, 'Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1664322. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1664322.}

_{Reynolds, K.A., Sexton, J.D., Norman, A. and McClelland, D.J. (2021) 'Comparison of electric hand dryers and paper towels for hand hygiene: A critical review of the literature', Journal of Applied Microbiology, 130 (1), pp. 25—39. doi: 10.1111/jam.14796.}

_{Torko, F. and Gibson, K.E. (2025) 'Product formulation and rubbing time impact the inactivation of enveloped and non-enveloped virus surrogates by foam-based hand sanitizers', Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 91 (4), e02474-24. doi: 10.1128/aem.02474-24.}

_{WHO (2009a) Hand Hygiene: Why, How & When? Geneva: World Health Organization.}

_{Who (2009b) How to Handrub? How to handwash? Geneva: World Health Organization.}

_{WHO (2009c) A Guide to the Implementation of the WHO Multimodal Hand Hygiene Improvement Strategy. Geneva: World Health Organization.}

_{WHO (2025) 'Gloves do not replace hand hygiene — reminder from WHO. ' Geneva: World Health Organization, May 5.}

_{Young, I., Greig, J., Wilhelm, B.J. and Waddell, L.A. (2019) 'Effectiveness of Food Handler Training and Education Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis', Journal of Food Protection, 82 (10), pp. 1714—1728. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-19-108.}

‍

‍

‍

‍